Erann claims that people using this system would be able to deny that they were propagating forbidden content. Barry Margolin points out, "unless they actually didn't know what the purpose of those random bit streams were, they would be perjuring themselves." David Harpe says, "During the trial, the reconstructed image is all the jury will see, understand or remember. They will fall asleep during the expert witness testimony regarding public key cryptography."

I have two remarks of my own. One is that it's interesting how in nine years "forbidden content" went from pornography to copyrighted works, and it may be about to go back.

The second thing this brings up to me is the nature of computer evidence in court. The police can seize my computer and tell the court that they found on it whatever they want to say. I have no way to prove that the evidence was planted. Of course, this isn't that different from the past. It's not more difficult to plant information on a computer than it is to plant damning paper.